The Bill raising the legal ages for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and gambling has passed the House 23-10, with Attorney General John Jeremie defending the “radical legislation” and telling the Opposition, “challenge it if you want.”
The Miscellaneous Provisions (Alcohol, Cannabis, Dangerous Drugs, Gambling and Tobacco) Bill, 2026, was approved with Government amendments following a lengthy sitting yesterday.
Winding up the debate, Jeremie said the Government was deliberately attempting to change the country’s trajectory.
“We have come with radical legislation,” he said.
Addressing warnings from the Opposition that the legislation could face a constitutional challenge, Jeremie responded, “Go ahead and challenge it. Go ahead and challenge it.”
He argued that Parliament was required to strike a balance between competing rights and interests, with the courts ultimately empowered to determine whether that balance was constitutionally permissible.
“The Privy Council, of course, as our final court, is going to see whether or not we have struck that balance correctly or incorrectly,” Jeremie said.
The Bill, however, changed significantly just before passage, with Jeremie introducing two major additions during the committee stage. One was mandatory national photo identification requirements and the other was restrictions on vaping.
The ID amendments require proof of age across several activities covered by the legislation.
Anyone selling tobacco must require national photo ID showing the purchaser is at least 21, while alcohol sellers face a similar requirement. Cannabis dispensers must demand ID showing a person is at least 25.
The requirement goes further at certain gambling and licensed premises, requiring those responsible for control, supervision, management or security to demand national photo ID before allowing a person to enter. Police would also be empowered to require ID where they reasonably believe someone possessing cannabis is under 25.
The second major amendment brings vaping expressly into the legislation, prohibiting anyone under 21 from using, purchasing or possessing a vaping product. Sellers would also have to demand photo identification proving a purchaser is at least 21.
Jeremie told the committee the ID provisions were inserted after concerns about how police would practically enforce the new age restrictions.
“It would have been difficult for the police, I was told, to determine the ages of individuals, so that we inserted that photo ID requirement,” he said, adding that it would give the prohibitions “teeth” by providing an objective means of establishing age.
But Diego Martin North East MP Colm Imbert repeatedly questioned why some of the provisions were drafted as absolute requirements rather than applying only where there was reasonable suspicion that someone was underage.
“If somebody is obviously over the age of 25, you’re going to tell me a 90-year-old man or 80 or 75-year-old person entering this establishment must produce ID?” Imbert asked.
“This is extremely cumbersome. And also unnecessary.”
Jeremie suggested businesses would apply common sense in practice.
“Owners of establishments customarily will know that someone is over 25 and not ask for an ID card,” he said.
Imbert, however, pointed to the wording of the amendment, arguing it imposed a strict legal requirement regardless of apparent age.
“The person must require the person to produce a valid form of ID. They can’t use a discretion and say, look, I know you’re an old person,” he said.
The Opposition MP also pressed Jeremie on another concern, the impact of the new age restrictions on employment opportunities for people who are legally adults but fall below the new thresholds.
Imbert expressed particular concern for workers between 18 and 24 employed in gambling establishments.
“What about a worker in a casino? Who neither handles alcohol nor tobacco, but is restricted from entering the casino or the gambling establishment because of their age,” he asked, giving the examples of cleaners and security guards.
“Where’s the workplace exemption for that category of worker?”
Jeremie initially acknowledged the point.
“That point is something that I would like to think about,” he said.
But he made clear the Bill would proceed without another amendment.
“It is not something that I am prepared to accept tonight. I’m not making that change here tonight.”
Imbert later raised a similar scenario involving a 24-year-old technician being unable to enter an age-restricted area to repair a gambling machine.
“A whole class of workers has just gone in the bamboo,” he warned.
Other Opposition amendments were also rejected.
Port of Spain South MP Keith Scotland unsuccessfully proposed reducing the cannabis age from 25 to 21, with Jeremie responding: “That’s not our policy… We are unable to accept it.”
Scotland also sought to roll back some of the Bill’s steep increases in imprisonment terms, arguing they were “draconian” and “disproportionate.”
On proposed liquor offences carrying prison terms of 15, 20 and 30 years, Scotland argued: “We’ve gone from three years to 15, 20 and 30.”
Jeremie again rejected the proposal.
“Not consistent with the Government’s policy,” he said. “I welcome the suggestion, but it’s not accepted.”
The Bill now goes to the Senate where it requires a simple majority for passage.
